Obama/McCain close race?

Email Print posted by newseven 09/06/2008 04:33:28 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
How many times have we heard the media say this: Obama is leading in the national polls, but why isn't his lead greater?  or... Shouldn't Obama be pulling away with a great lead in an election year where Democrats are favored to win? etc.

The thing that irritates me the most about this line of questioning from the media is that the media itself is a big part of the reason why the race between McCain and Obama is so close.  If the media truly did it's job of properly vetting McCain, the race wouldn't be close at all.  Let's face it, the media wants the race to be close and does everything within it's power to keep it close.

Case in point.  Leading up to and during the Democratic National Convention, the question of the day (everyday) was "how much of a 'bounce' will Obama get from the convention?" This question was asked daily if not hourly by the media.  And when it appeared initially throughout the week of the DNC that Obama wasn't getting much of a bounce, it was headline news - NO BOUNCE FOR OBAMA!.  Then after Obama gave his speach and the polls started to move back up in his favor (even if only slightly) the questions about the impact of the DNC began to fade.

Now contrast this daily/hourly obsession of the convention bounce of Obama versus the non-existant question of whether or not McCain would receive a "bounce" from his convention at all.  I don't think I heard or read anything where a pundit or newsreader made one single comment about the RNC and/or the expectation of a bounce for McCain.  The question is why the obsession over the poll bounce for one candidate and not the other?  It's simple, the media wants the race between Obama and McCain to remain as close as possible.  Setting expectations too high for McCain could sink him and the media knows this.  So they intentionally stay away from such questions as they relate to McCain.
The media also knows that properly vetting McCain WOULD sink him too. 

It's really a shame to see what's going on.  I can only hope that Obama will have enough advertising dollars to supplement what the media should be doing on it's own as a public service.  But I digress... the media cannot stand the thought of one candidate pulling away.  A close race keeps the dollars flowing both in advertising dollars from the campaigns as well as increased ratings.  The American Idolization of politics is here... sad but true.
< Between a rock and a hard place | Change You Can Campaign On >
 Display:
Obama/McCain close race? | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
you nailed it.. (none / 0)
but the irony is because of this coverage, the rethugs don't see the landslide coming.  The polling is still using landlines for fuck sake...

chris

by chrisandyasemin on 09/06/2008 04:37:48 PM EST

Let's be realistic for a second (none / 0)

Betting that all of the polls are under-representing Obama's support seems a little naive.  Gallup, for one, does call people who only use cell phones.  There are other issues with polls that might favor McCain as well, but in general polls have been pretty accurate in previous elections and in the primaries.  There seems to be a consensus among the polls over the last couple of days that Obama is leading by a small percentage (2-3 percent) nationally.  I would bet that is where the race stands today.

by publius on 09/06/2008 06:54:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Agree... polls are fairly accurate (none / 0)
I agree.  It is actually foolish to assume that there is a hidden amount of support for Obama that is not being picked up by the polls.  If anything, there is a hidden race bias against Obama that will favor McCain on election day.  Obama actually needs a lead that is above the margin of error as well as an added cusion for all the people who can't admit to themselves let alone a pollster that Obama's race will prevent them from voting for him.

A lot of people said the same thing about land lines versus cell phones during the primaries.  It was all wishful thinking.  Polls aren't 100 percent accurate, but they are still the best indicator of how the election will turn out.  A close race does not bode well for Obama.  He needs a solid lead in order to win.

Having said that, people are focusing on the national polls when what we really need focus on is the individual state-by-state polls.

by newseven on 09/06/2008 07:25:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Agreed - where is Adamg when you need him??? (none / 0)
A while back, a poster namend adamg posted state by state elctoral analysis of the primaries - we all told him to go away because his posts were premature and annoying.

We need you now adamg!!! These national polls are useless to us, we need hard numbers in states like OHio, Missouri and Florida - we need to satrt playing "John King magic board electoral college map hockey" (no pun intended). national polls could be calling people in CA, TX or NY where the election is pretty much already decided...

Now is the time to bear down on individual battleground states and really start crunching the numbers...

I agree with the other parts of your post as well - if anything, there will be an anti-Obama push at the voting booths that isnt coming out in the telephone polling, not the other way around. Go ask Tom Bradley about it...



:)

by bobo1 on 09/06/2008 07:56:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
@bobo1 :) you (none / 0)
Your other predictions about Obama where dead wrong. I have no reason to believe this one is any different. The KKK factor isn't as big as you hope.

by Lib on 09/06/2008 08:31:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Never Underestimate the Power of the Dark Side... (none / 0)
or in this case, the Anti-Dark side...



Yoda was talking to you, Lib...

:)

by bobo1 on 09/06/2008 08:57:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If you want state by state analysis (none / 0)

The best place to go is FiveThirtyEight or Pollster.

Both sites have Obama sitting on the precipice with 260 electoral votes which includes all Kerry states minus NH plus IA and NM.  He really has to win only one of the following: FL, OH, VA, or CO + NH. 

The electoral map may still turn out very similar to 2004, but the states in play are very different this time around.  They have shifted in the Democrats favor.  Kerry was barely hanging on to states like MI and WI where Obama is pretty safely up in the polls.  Kerry lost IA where Obama is up by about 10 (+15 in the most recent poll taken during the Dem Convention).  Kerry also lost NM where Obama looks to be safely in control.  Bush beat Kerry by about 8 percent in VA where Obama is practically tied with McCain.

Just like Democrats shouldn't be counting on undersampling of cell phone users or a huge unexpected youth turnout I think Republicans would be foolish to put too much faith in the Bradley/Wilder effect.  There were several high profile cases back in the 1980's that seemed to show an underperformance of black candidates in actual voting numbers than in telephone surveys.  However, more recent evidence of this effect is harder to find.

Here is the abstract of a paper that seems to have the definitive answer:

The 2008 election has renewed interest in the Wilder effect, the gap between the share of survey respondents expressing support for a candidate and the candidate’s vote share. Using new data from 133 gubernatorial and Senate elections from 1989 to 2006, this paper presents the first large-sample test of the Wilder effect. It demonstrates a significant Wilder effect only through the early 1990s, when Wilder himself was Governor of Virginia. Although the same mechanisms could impact female candidates, this paper finds no such effect at any point in time. It also shows how polls’ over-estimation of front-runners’ support can exaggerate estimates of the Wilder effect. Together, these results accord with theories emphasizing how short-term changes in the political context influence the role of race in statewide elections. The Wilder effect is the product of racial attitudes in specific political contexts, not a more general response to under-represented groups.

 It does find evidence of a Bradley/Wilder effect in the 80s and early 90s, but this effect disappears by the late 1990s, and is nowhere to be found today.  The primaries between Obama and Clinton seemed to bare this out with the obvious exception of New Hampshire.

by publius on 09/06/2008 09:05:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you publius... (none / 0)
I will check out those sites!!! As for the Bradley/Wilder effect, I would just say that you might be right, but none of those candidates in the late 90s and 2000s were running for president - that will make a lot of people think twice, since its not some meaningless school board or state senate seat. Thanks again for the state poll links! :)

by bobo1 on 09/06/2008 09:36:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No problem bobo1 (none / 0)

Well, actually Wilder was a Governor and Bradley was a just a mayor.  The paper uses data from 47 races for Governor or US Senate seats involving black candidates. 

There is no more evidence that the Wilder effect exists on a national level than there is that it doesn't because, well, no black person have ever been the nominee of a major political party.  

by publius on 09/06/2008 11:48:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm kind of glad it's perceived as a close race (none / 0)
If we approach election day, and Obama appears to be heading towards victory with a landslide, you can bet your ass that Bush will bomb Iran.  It's probably better that the race is seen as close.  Of course, this doesn't preclude Bush from bombing Iran in his last couple of months in office (remember Poppy Bush put troops in Somalia in his last month of office).

by twalters0 on 09/06/2008 04:42:20 PM EST

Don't Be Silly (none / 0)
Bush can easily wait until November to bomb Iran.  And he'll only do that if the winner isn't the guy who sings "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran...  Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran..."

by rbruck on 09/06/2008 10:23:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama/McCain close race? | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: